Loren Haarsma wrote:
>
>
>ABSTRACT: PC and TE perspectives on "guided" evolution: "God using
>finely tuned natural law and precisely specified initial conditions" is an
>important element of, but does not exhaust, God's involvement with
>biological evolution under TE.
>
>
>
>Brian, when you responded to my earlier post on this subject, I got the
>impression that you would like to define
>
> "theistic evolution" = "God used finely tuned natural law
> and precisely specified initial conditions."
>"progressive creation" = "God guided and intervened in the evolutionary
> process, perhaps obviously, perhaps subtly
> or even undetectably."
>
I really wasn't trying to be so bold ;-) as to actually define TE, i.e. I
consider the statement "God used finely tuned natural law and precisely
specified initial conditions" consistent with a TE viewpoint but not
necessarily the best way of defining it. So, how to define it?
"I don't know, go ask your mother"
-- Dr. Seuss ;-)
What I find interesting is that someone like Hugh Ross, for example,
emphasizes fine tuning and initial conditions in Cosmology but would
probably balk at the idea of applying the exact same ideas to biology.
Is this an inconsistency?
I'm not sure the best way to define TE, but I do agree with the above
as a definition of progressive creation, regardless of whether any
progressive creationists like it ;-).
LH:==========
>I prefer to define the terms this way:
>
> "deistic evolution" = "God carefully set up the initial conditions but
> did not guide or intervene in the natural
> processes until humanity arose."
> "theistic evolution" = "God used and guided natural processes subtly,
> so biological history does not show obvious
> supernatural events/guidance (aside from the
> truly astounding fact that it exists at all)."
>"progressive creation" = "unguided natural processes cannot account for
> the existence, diversity, and complexity of life,
> so the scientific evidence suggests supernatural
> guidance/intervention in biological history
> (although it may have happened in many small
> steps)."
>
>I prefer my definitions because I think they more closely reflect the
>actual positions people advocate in this debate. I think my definition of
>PC is what Phillip Johnson and other PC authors and participants in this
>reflector are _really_ arguing for.
>
>I personally believe BOTH (a) that God guided evolutionary mechanisms in a
>meaningful way beyond merely providing precise tuning and initial
>conditions; AND (b) that we will probably, eventually, be able to give an
>adequate scientific account of biological history in terms of natural
>mechanisms, just as we can (almost) do now in galactic/stellar evolution.
>Based upon what I've read in this group and elsewhere, people who agree
>with me tend to call themselves TE or EC rather than PC.
>
>(Let me also add this: The difference between "deistic" and "theistic"
>evolution, as I have defined them, is almost entirely one of theological
>perspective rather than scientific interpretation. I think that the
>definition of "desitic evolution" may be within the bounds of orthodox
>understandings of God's governance of nature -- albeit barely within the
>bounds -- so long as you add God's guidance and intervention once humanity
>arises.)
>
I agree with your comment about differences in deistic and theistic
evolution being a matter of theology. Perhaps I get myself in a little
trouble because I prefer to think about these issues from a scientific
perspective, at least in "public" :).
I have been thinking a lot about this wrt my previous musings about the
probability argument, and especially my contention that the observation
of order implies natural law. So, let me give a few speculative ideas.
Suppose that theistic evolution, as you define it above, is true. Now,
let's further suppose that God's subtle guidance occurred according to
a plan and not haphazardly according to whim. If God's guidance is
according to a plan, then it is reasonable to say that it will be
orderly, non-random. Why could we not then attribute the observation
of these orderly events in natural history as being due to natural law, i.e.
how could one distinguish between the orderly inactment of subtle
guidance and natural law?
So, from a scientific point of view, I find it very difficult to distinguish
theistic and deistic evolution.
My personal distinction between deism and theism has primarily to do with
two things (a) is God a personal God who cares about his creation and
(b) did things occur according to a plan, i.e. did God only set up
natural law as some kind of "experiment" to see what would pop out when
its all done. This requires only natural law and not fine tuning.
In other words, the important point is that "natural" history is not
an accident, it happens according to plan and it doesn't seem to me to
be particularly important how the plan was executed. Getting back to
Goodwin and self-organiztion, I take the existence of generic forms
(if indeed they do exist) to be evidence of purpose, evidence of a plan.
[...]
>>BH:===========
>> I am interested in trying to develop these ideas further. I find it appealing
>> in the sense that it provides a natural way to combine intelligent design
>> with theistic evolution.
>LH:============
>I agree. These are important and appealing ideas, and I would like to see
>them developed further. I'm also interested to hear how you would
>differentiate these idea from classical Deism. Thanks.
>
As I said above, I think it would be almost impossible to distinguish
theistic and deistic evolution based on scientific observations. From
a theological point of view, the main point for me is "mindful intention"
(as Howard would probably put it). God knew from the beginning what would
appear in the last frames of the tape. Whether this required subtle
tinkering on his part doesn't seem to me to be nearly so important.
I personally don't put a lot of stock in theology, much too slippery ;-).
I heard a little "parable" awhile back which expresses my views pretty
well. The parable goes roughly like this: There is a house with only a
door, the door is a couple of feet off the ground with no steps or porch
or anything. A person comes to the house and, with some effort, manages
to climb through the door. As time goes on they begin to make improvements.
First they add a cinder block or two as steps to the door. Then they remove
these and add some nice wooden steps. Later they modify this to a simple
porch and then later to a more elaborate and ornate porch with a nice
porch swing etc. etc.
In this little parable, the door represents salvation and the porch
represents theology. Theology is introduced to help us understand our
experience of salvation, but our theology and our experience are two
separate things, not to be confused. The porch can be blown away, the door
remains.
===
Brian Harper:=:=:=:=:=:=:=:=:=:=:=:=:=:=:=:=:=:=:=:=:=:=:=:=:=:=:=:=:=:=:=:=
"I believe there are 15,747,724,136,275,002,577,605,653,961,181,555,468,
044,717,914,527,116,709,366,231,425,076,185,631,031,296 protons in the
Universe and the same number of electrons." Arthur Stanley Eddington
:=:=:=:=:=:=:=:=:=:=:=:=:=:=:=:=:=:=:=:=:=:=:=:=:=:=:=:=:=:=:=:=:=:=:=:=:=:=